Reader comments

Do you really think that banning people’s faiths would eliminate hatred and intolerance? There is so much hatred in the world and it isn’t just by those who claim they are something when in fact they are not. Case in point, I’m a Christian, and I know and acknowledge that Jesus and the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality but is humans who twist original scriptures to fit their own point of view, their own prejudices and bigotry who would like to tell it differently. I’m a Canadian Anglican and there is much more of a fight for pro-gay equality and acceptance in the church. There are openly gay ministers and churches that encourage parishioners who are queer to be out and proud. In addition, there are, for example, many Christians who acknowledge Evolution through Grand Design, but also promote understanding and communication with faiths around the world. There is so much hatred on the Internet, just scroll through YouTube comments and Facebook comments, and much of the verbal sewage

is not done by religious people but agnostic and athiest people – if not more than just as equal to any religious fanatic. Those who claim to be of God but promote hatred and intolerance are not of God and should be seen as such. Pointing a finger at religion itself and all those following their faith is not open-minded or free-thinking but quite the opposite; those who would try to ban the practice of one’s faith or religion itself is no different than the bigotry and hatefulness by those false followers of their respective faith; forcing one’s opinion that religion has no place, and not allowing God be mentioned as anything more than a swear word or taught as a myth, for example, is no different than the fanatic who tries to force hir belief on others. It’s not faith or religion that is a problem but humans whose hearts are filled with ignorance and/ or hate, and whose zeal blinds them (and, “when one’s faith is blinded by zeal, there is no faith at all.”)

In my real life I hardly ever encounter any prejudice – and I guess I’m lucky, because I know others are not lucky, or it’s because I’m an incredibly scary person who intimidates on-sight !! On the Internet it’s totally different to real life, and it’s mostly dogmatic fundamentalist traditionalist and some right-wing Evangelical Christians .. mostly… whose anti-gay bullying, homophobia and bigotry on any thread / comments section in the media is plain and simple to see.

But we know that the majority of Christians support equal rights, 56% in Australia, 61% here, a majority in most religions for than against (see Pew in the US). So we have to support those people, our allies, people with a pragmatic common-sense caring-for-others, Golden-rule followers, whilst robustly responding, with facts, to those whose humanity seems to be lacking, and my own assessment is that they seem cold, to have sociopathic tendencies and inhuman.

Atheists and skeptics in general have been the driving force of progress for throughout history.Religious people on the other hand have done the outmost to hinder progress in every conceivable way.A quick look at history shows us they have opposed LGBT,women rights,freedom of religion and have supported the most evil regimes in history(Guess what !! The orthodox clergy served as KGBs agents in Soviet Russia) .In my country we oulawed religious beliefs and the belief in god in 1974 and although we we have freddom of religion now people are apathetic to religion.If you start talking about Jesus and Mohammed you will be seen as a psychopath and a shame for the family .No one needs religion, it is just an ilusion that works like an addiction,the faster you lose the addiction the better you are off

Galileo, Darwin, Copernicus all persecuted by the Church! Even today “creationists” try to peddle a ludicrous and untenable theory / doctrine based on an allegorical text (Genesis) from thousands of years old, and badly translated in most instances.

Also, religion should be taught as myth, cultural baggage and wishful thinking because it IS myth and cultural baggage and wishful thinking. That’s not opinion, that’s fact. There is no evidence that the distinctive claims of any religion are true, most of them are ridiculous and silly, and the hypotheses of religion have contributed nothing to our understanding of how the world really is, rather than how we might wish it to be. Given the utter paucity of evidence for its veracity, claiming otherwise is an act of extreme intellectual dishonesty.

And. again, faith is the problem. Faith is belief without evidence. We should not believe things without evidence.

Except the bigots and homophobes are just as much christians as you are, and their personal prejudices are just as valid as yours when it comes to religiosity. “Christianity” is whatever people who call themselves christians want it to be – it’s a human social construct, and people construct it differently to fit their own agendas. That’s the problem with religion – it’s all just made-up feel-good wish-thinking. There is no check against reality to ground it in fact. Which is why it gets used to justify all kinds of bigotry. And by promoting and lauding this approach to life – the use of emotion and tradition and wishful thinking to decide policy, rather than evidence and fact, you facilitate the bigots in doing just the same thing. Faith is the problem, rationality is the solution.

Craig, like all the other social animal species, humans are hard-wired for justice. The golden rule is a necessary part of all such species’ continued existence. This is a fact, documented by scientists during hundreds of years of observation. It is as true for Blue Jays as it is for Bonobos. That makes religion a corruption of, not an aid to our biological reality. Evolution, not religion, created the concept of justice; social animals couldn’t function without an innate understanding of justice.

Religion co-opted the golden rule and pretends that it is a gift from the mythical god(s) created by inventors of religion. Any social philosophy that seeks to redefine or give special attributes to natural phenomena is a construct invented tto agrandize power to the inventor/practicioner. A pretense that the golden rule is not innate but gods-given is used by weak people to justify their instinct for justice and keep power over their mental universe at the same time.

The same pretense about justice being gods-given is used by weak people to excuse their denial of the universality of biological justice in their species, so they can get and keep power over others. Religions allow humans to pervert a universal natural phenomenum (hard-wired justice in social animal species) into “good” and “evil” deeds.

A believer in religion isn’t constrained by the reality of history. He doesn’t have to admit that his “fight against prejudice toward LGBT people” is an attempt to return to what the church practiced until 1500 CE, same sex marriage. A believer in religion isn’t constrained by the reality of scientific observation. This enables him to espouse an entirely invented, never observed concept of “evolution by grand design” as if it was valid, despite all empirical evidence that it doesn’t and can’t exist. It enables him to claim attacks as mostly from atheists despite all evidence that this is a flagrant lie.

Thanks for damning me and everyone like me who is only trying to live a life and find a love while dealing (successfully) with a virus. Your comment affects more than just those who do not know their serostatus – it reinforces the sero-aparthied that exists in today’s gay community.

If you have never tried to KNOWINGLY infect someone, if you have never WITHHELD KNOWLEGE ABOUT YOUR CONDITION from a sexual partner, then Adrian T’s correct statement does not apply to you and shouldn’t be causing you hurt. Nor will I let you get away with trying to guilt-trip other users of this forum for something they haven’t done to you.

Adrian T’s statement was very clear. That is why I shouted at you. You need to immediately understand what he actually wrote, and stop lashing out at people who haven’t attacked you. Sero-apartheid? Really?? Get over yourself. I’m a gay, black American who was involved in the fight against apartheid for decades. You don’t get to co-opt that word for any social or cultural situation that is short of genocidal conduct. You haven’t earned that right.

You don’t get to complain about attitudes toward your condition unless you are a human who has always meticulously protected every human you could infect by warning them:

I’m a 70 year old who contracted Hepatitis C in 1968. In 1968, they didn’t know Hep C existed; I was diagnosed with Hep C in 1998 when my liver began failing. What I did know in 1968 was that I almost died from Hepatitis (presumed at the time to be A and B) and that my bilirubin count was permanently affected.

I was informed that that test meant I could no longer donate blood ever again and that there was evidence that I could infect a sexual partner. In the 44 years since then I never had unprotected sex and never had sex with a partner without informing them I had once had life-threatening Hepatitis and might be able to infect them. I have stopped nurses and emergency medical technicians from drawing my blood without wearing gloves.

Unless you’ve lived like that since you were first informed of your positive status you don’t get to complain about the attitudes of others who may have become the victims of a Gaetan Dugas type of human.

If you HAVE lived as I have, Adrian T’s comment had nothing to do with you. At the height of the AIDS crisis in NYC, when I lost dozens of dear friends or clients (I was in NYC Dept of Social Services) I put my job on the line to hit the streets on behalf of those victims and our entire community. If you have never done as much, you don’t get to speak unchallenged about your hurt, over a comment which doesn’t reference your circumstances.

Silence equals death cuts both ways. One can’t speak if one doesn’t know, so what Adrian T said doesn’t refer to such persons.

I totally relate to the isolation and pain that the fear and rejection of other humans has caused you. All the more reason for you to robustly call for the heads of those carriers who selfishly get us all labeled with their criminal selfishness.

This is part of the spectrum of Christian beliefs. Trying to disown those who are unsavoury is dishonest. Accept that these people are Christians, represent other Christians, and accept that the religion needs parts of it changing, and parts of it abolishing.

The more good Christians who deny that these evil people are Christians, the further we are from changing our society. Own up to the fact that the religion good people follow can also inspire evil, then work to stop it. Saying they’re not “true Christians” (the no-true-scotsman strikes again) is just a way of closing your eyes and ears to the problems within Christianity.

No, you are incorrect. If he was a true Christian, he would not have tried to inflict damage to someone based on selfish and incorrect attitudes that are in fact NOT based in Christian faith. I’m a Christian and I am gay, and it’s not the Faith that has caused me grief it is grief caused by humans who refuse to view their actions as self-made and not of Christ. Christianity does not create despair and hatred but it is humans who use God as their excuse to hide behind their own fears, insecurities, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and hatred. This man took it upon himself to use medication in a way not medically sound to cure something not in need of curing. It is sad and an utter disgrace that this man alleges to represent Christ and the medical profession by his actions; however, there are those not affiliated with Christ or the medical field who would do the same as him. If this man sees his monstrous choice/ error and decides to truly represent Christ, and somehow tries to make

Different people who use the label “christian” believe different things. You do not get to decide who can and cannot use the word to describe themselves – you are not the supreme arbiter of English lexicography. To them, christianity is bigoted and homophobic. To you it isn’t. But you must both accept that the term is used by others, has cultural currency in many contexts, and that you do not have exclusive possession of it.

Ultimately it’s all man-made nonsense. There is no “one true christianity”, just different sects and individuals with different ideas and interpretations. Historically speaking, however, almost all forms of christianity have been virulently homophobic from the beginning. To claim otherwise is blatantly ahistorical and deluded.

In an earlier time he would probably have volunteered his services to provide medical expertise for the inquisition.
“Yes he’s still alive you can carry on with the interrogation when he recovers conciousness “

Hateful, plain and simple.
What else could Mark Craddock be, if it took him 10 minutes to recommend his patient take a course of action that is dangerous and could at the very least affect the rest of the patient’s life, if not outright end it.
And even worse, he intended to leave his patient without any form of support after taking the ‘prescription’.
Wow, a real “love your neighbour” Christian.

He should definitely be facing criminal charges, and a new law here in the UK is also needed, making it a criminal offence to provide reparative therapy or attempt to proscribe any such treatment. But that’s as I’ve said it before.

Just having professional bodies outlaw it is not good enough, because this particular brand of Christians doesn’t believe in man-made laws, only their god’s laws.

As long as you recognize what they view as “of God” isn’t actually of God. In addition, no one who is truly of Christ would insidiously place another person at harm, even if ze (erroneously) believed said person was “diseased.”

But according to him is IS “of god”. And his opinion is just as valid as yours, because neither of you has any evidence for what this fictional character you’ve invented believes. You’re both making stuff up, and that’s the problem.

Anybody who wishes to become a doctor should be prepared to keep their prejudices out of the surgery. The Hypocratic Oath should be updated to include an unbiased approach to medicine. Mark Craddock deserved to be struck off. Chemical castration for gays is the sort of thing you expect from ‘doctors’ such as Joseph Megele.

As Darren says, something should be done there. They have a duty of care and have to cover all medical issues. Religious belief in medical matters comes ONLY in relation to abortion — so for example they cannot refuse to issue the pill on religious grounds, and the ECHR has quite a number of cases stating exactly that.

and if you Google “Pichon and Sajous v. France” you’ll find explanations as to why religious beliefs do not extend in to your employment. This matter is totally settled by ECHR law, and unless changed by them with Gary Mcfarlane and Lillian Ladell (unlikely) then the law stands, and is quite clear. The only exception is abortion.

The Dr was and probably still living in the 1950’s when chemical castration was considered the correct thing to do. Did he not realise that we live in the 21st century and that is no longer needed, required and most certainly not wanted.

As many others have said, he should have been stripped of his licence to practice and given a custodial sentence.

He is not `Christian’ in usual sense – he belongs to an extreme right wing group known and the Exclusive Brethren. This was a group which received moral and financial support from our ex- prime minister John Howard – the same man who took up into the Iraq and Afhganistan war. They even have their own schools which our crazy government continues to give public funds to.

It’s revealing that Craddock “did not obtain a medical history, failed to conduct a physical examination, and also did not take an adequate sexual history or arrange a follow-up appointment for the patient.

He also did not refer the teenager to a counsellor or a psychologist, despite the drug manufacturer’s recommendation, and did not order a liver test or discuss the side effects, which include impotence.” No mention whatever appears to have been made of the ethics of his decision, just the hard-boiled clinical case, as though, had he complied with all of the above, the ‘treatment’ would have been fine. I’d be interested in hearing more information about this.

I thought that was odd, too! When I was circumcised as a young man, I was told that the pills I was given were to prevent me getting erections until the healing process had completed, and I was reassured the effects were not permanent. It was acknowledged that inducing impotence in an adolescent was not something done lightly.
Why was this man so obsessed with preventing a teenager having a sex life, anyway? It’s the boy’s life and conscience, not the doctors! He is not as though he were a danger to the public. Dealing with our emerging sexual desires, whatever direction they take, is part of human development and becoming adult. Controlling and directing those desires in socially appropriate ways is a sigh of maturity.
What this boy does with his penis is no concern of the doctor, unless it causes damage or is a risk to the teenager’s health. The primary rule is “first, do no harm”.

PinkNews covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the UK and worldwide. Founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community, we cover politics to theology in an intelligent manner.